I also think that they know Walker is darn near done. Especially when Chrissy Schneider is whining that recalls were to stop the money power....and then his guy Scotty has acted as Exhibit A of a check being needed on the money power. And Chrissy Schneider and his fellow hacks from WPRI are the ones who want the money power to lord over all, which is what makes that article doubly cynical and hypocritical.
They really have nothing, it's why they're using dishonest ads that never mention Walker's name or record. Let's just bring the truth the next 8 weeks and get em.
Schnieder's opinion is a reflection of the JS's continuing hissy fit on recalls. Instead of defending Walker they resort to sponsoring opinions that support their viiews. So they don"t allow their journalists to sign recalls but endorse Schneider's one- sided and baseless opinions? Since when are editorial writers objective journalists? When do they cross the line?
Do follow the ongoing debate between whiny Schneider and legal scholar Ed Fallone, back and forth from Fallone's MU Law School blog to Schneider's blog to Fallone's, again.
Basically, Schneider's turned in very poorly done term paper to the JS, where it got past the very poor graders there. Fallone-the-prof stepped in and, appropriately, gave Schneider the F that his work deserved.
Then Schneider filed a grade appeal in his blog, bringing up useless points that are off-point and whining that he worked harrrrrd for many, many hours (at a site whose name he doesn't even get right). And Fallone replies with a smackdown of the grade appeal on the grounds that, well, it's still lousy work, no matter how harrrrrd was the work. Duh.
I also think that they know Walker is darn near done. Especially when Chrissy Schneider is whining that recalls were to stop the money power....and then his guy Scotty has acted as Exhibit A of a check being needed on the money power. And Chrissy Schneider and his fellow hacks from WPRI are the ones who want the money power to lord over all, which is what makes that article doubly cynical and hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteThey really have nothing, it's why they're using dishonest ads that never mention Walker's name or record. Let's just bring the truth the next 8 weeks and get em.
What is that? Five times now that the JS has expressed their displeasure with the recalls? What is that? 84 font. Hissy fits in the board room?
ReplyDeleteSchnieder's opinion is a reflection of the JS's continuing hissy fit on recalls. Instead of defending Walker they resort to sponsoring opinions that support their viiews. So they don"t allow their journalists to sign recalls but endorse Schneider's one- sided and baseless opinions? Since when are editorial writers objective journalists? When do they cross the line?
ReplyDeleteDo follow the ongoing debate between whiny Schneider and legal scholar Ed Fallone, back and forth from Fallone's MU Law School blog to Schneider's blog to Fallone's, again.
ReplyDeleteBasically, Schneider's turned in very poorly done term paper to the JS, where it got past the very poor graders there. Fallone-the-prof stepped in and, appropriately, gave Schneider the F that his work deserved.
Then Schneider filed a grade appeal in his blog, bringing up useless points that are off-point and whining that he worked harrrrrd for many, many hours (at a site whose name he doesn't even get right). And Fallone replies with a smackdown of the grade appeal on the grounds that, well, it's still lousy work, no matter how harrrrrd was the work. Duh.